I rewatched Barry Lyndon last night, and it was better than I remembered...

I rewatched Barry Lyndon last night, and it was better than I remembered. I think Barry Lyndon is the best period piece because it looks like what I imagine a movie from the 1800s would really be if they had the technology to make them back then. Are there any other period movies that give you that vibe? I've never seen anything like this

bump for intrest

Amadeus. A lot of it was filmed in Prague while it was still under Communist rule and then very heavily lacking in modern amenities. The buildings and streets were much as they were before the advent of electricity and automobiles.

Some of the sets were shot in the opera houses where Mozart himself performed.

>Barry Lyndon
>1800s

>Barry gets crippled by his wife's son
Kubrick was truly ahead of his time.

>movie set in the 1790s
>"DON'T EVER ROUND UP, GOYIM!"
It's a decade. It's literally a decade.

>Barry Lyndon is the best period piece because it looks like what I imagine a movie from the 1800s would really be if they had the technology to make them back then.

thats interesting af, it totally has another worldly feeling outside this era

kek what do jews have to do with it?

it's the most measured film ever made, it draws me in like some satanic black magic, sick shit. kubrick's best

the pinnacle of kubrickino

It starts in the 1750's, Barry fights in the Seven Years War mate.

They mention in a documentary (the one included in the EWS dvd) how Kubrick asked around on the studio for some outdated camera model nobody wanted to use. Later someone else was looking for the cameras because now they were worth a fortune for some reason, but Kubrick had taken them all. The flaw in that camera is that it had some weird aperture that made pictures look flat, which most filmmakers don't want. But Kubrick wanted Barry Lyndon to look and feel like a period painting, so that camera was perfect to him.

Then of course there's that ordeal as to Kubrick using lenses designed for NASA to be able to shoot those dim scenes with candles. They had to modify the cameras to fit those lenses, and by modify I mean cutting out pieces and rebuilding it

>"DON'T ROUND UP, GOYIM!"

In this piece of film, every frame is literally a painting.

Friend got this for me on DVD a few years ago and I haven’t watched it yet, is it even worth watching in SD

...

Just download it in 1080p

This movie, I assume, wasn't popular in its time because of the dark, bleak second half where no one is redeemable and no good deed goes unpunished.
Its really a shame, because the majority of the movie is really well done, and the time period barely gets any movies made about it.

Its a total shame that my hero Napoleon didn't get a biopic from Kubrick, who told a great story in an overlooked but intriguing time period.

plus the boxing match scene

interesting note: he used natural lighting from the camera he got for faking the moon landing since the earth is flat

Fun fact: Mr. Tool, from the boxing match scene, is the nazi who gets cut up by a propeller in Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark

are there any other films that literally announce major plot points? seems an interesting choice.

the 1790s are radically different from any decade in the 19th century, and the movie begins in the 1750s, you fucking moron. you can't just "round up". let me guess; you're American?

>"DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT ROUNDING UP GOYIM"
Can't believe I have to deal with this shit in the year of our Lord 2020

Yeah, it’s beautiful.
It’s a romance novel on-screen, that translates to film better than a lot of Kubrick other more popular films, but since most sane people don’t have the patience to sit through an eighteen hour period piece that moves that slowly, it almost never gets watched.

To me, it’s like Kubrick thought, I want to just spend a couple hours in this beautiful world, and enjoy being in it. And so he did. And it was very, very comfy.

just accept that you got exposed as a fat, circumcised, retard and close the thread.

Hey, I'm not circumcised

Pasolini

Sup Forumstards would blame anything on the Jews

saved

Watching this movie makes me wish we would have seen his Napoleon. Napoleon would have been his magnum opus but the jews got rid of him after eyes wide shut.

There's not much out there to compare to Barry Lyndon, but you should check out:
Mr Turner
The Duelists
Hamlet (1996) - Kenneth Branagh
Amadeus
The Death of Louis XIV

I’ve seen Kenneth Branaugh’s Hamlet, that’s a great fucking movie

>Branaugh
I meant Branagh

Yeah it's absolutely stellar. The amount of controlled autism Kubrick took into painstakingly recreating the look and feel of 18th Century environments, the natural candlelight, the battles, etc. is almost unmatched today.

A lot of the research that went into Napoleon ended up being used in Barry Lyndon, so Barry Lyndon essentially is the closest we'll ever see to Kubrick's Napoleon.

Why is Griffith criticized for the qualities Barry Lyndon is praised for?

Because Kubrickians lied to you. When they say every shot looks like a painting, they only use the same 4-5 shots.

Because Kubrickians lied to you. When they say every shot looks like a painting, they only use the same 4-5 shots

>because it looks like what I imagine a movie from the 1800s
that's because kubrick was autistic and didn't want the movie to look like costume drama, but like paintings from that period

he even told the costume designers to follow the painting as closely as possible.

There's nothing in these shots that remotely look like a painting. Only the fact that it's long and has high headroom really. Anyways, it looks like any washed out 70s flick. 19th century paintings feature stark shadows in the frame to delineate foreground from midground to background and to create depth. Lyndon is always flat and his physiognomy is completely opposed to the 18th century paintings where individuals are relatively near. Here he's forcing a distance and dissimilar look from that of the time frame, the models are alien and sterile compared to the generally flowery presentation of 18th century paintings. So Pauline was right in assessing that it's Kubrick making an amateur Bresson version of a 30s costume picture

griffithfag pls

This is a painting for people that have never been to an art gallery and have seen a maximum of 20 pre-19th century paintings in their life

This nigger used a reverse tracking shot for an 18th century period piece that intentionally mimicked paintings

"waah he doesn't follow my arbitrary rules!"

Does this look like a painting to you?

Now compare to a serious artist.

A bald assertion isn't an argument. I've already refuted your representation based arguments. Give me something else.

I'd put that on my wall!

...

...

do people actually consider barry lyndon to be a good movie? it's sleep inducing

The paintings on the wall look better than this shot.

No worries, I have just the film for you,

don't listen to him, it's just one butthurt griffithfag

>do people actually consider barry lyndon to be a good movie? it's sleep inducing

I enjoy the aesthetics of it. As someone who has worked in the tv and film industry the technical aspects of it are fucking incredible, but from a story standpoint, it is kind of shit.

it's no doubt a pretty film, but if that's all it offers. at that point why wouldn't you go look at a painting instead? films aren't solely about aesthetics and they shouldn't be

2% percent of the population occupy 90% of leadership roles in automotive, media, and technology, God forbid you say it's them huh?

Nigga, we know paintings don't move. We're saying the composition and stillness makes it similar to paintings. Obviously no painting in the 18th century actually used reverse-tracking shots. Literally nobody is claiming 18th century paintings used reverse tracking shots.

Wow, looks like a painting

>just one
Zoinks!

Wow, looks like a painting.

How is Barry Lyndon state-of-the-art, but Griffith is primitive? Kubrick even admitted he loved Griffith's works. Pic is about a half-century earlier than Barry Lyndon. It isn't even the best post 1960 British period piece.

I strongly recommend Tess by Roman Polanski. It's beautifully shot, definitely right up there with Barry Lyndon.

...

...

how in the fuck did he not achieve satisfaction?

You can tell the director of that movie knows a thing or two about molesting young girls.

fuck you, speed is a good movie

Doesn't mean it's a bad movie.

>We're saying the composition and stillness makes it similar to paintings
There are no 1700s paintings with centered subjects looking directly in the camera like a generic kubrick reverse tracking shot. It defies romantic aesthetic theory, you dumbfuck.

>Wow, looks like a painting
Since when did paintings have shallow depth of field?

hmm roman polanski you say, does it have the /youknowwhat/ aesthetic?

The closeup is oftentimes dynamism. It is life extending out 3-dimmensionally. It is not tableau, it is not painting. The closeup enables connection and investment. Unless you aim for a portrait shot.

Sup Forums is aware that BL's life is a metaphor for SK's life right?

Oh yes.

When you put it like that then every frame in Lord Of The Rings: FOTR is a painting.

why do anti fags always slander with ''haha how is this frame a painting x D'', obviously it is impossible for every scene to look like a painting, sod off communist soyboys

What's with this Griffith stuff? Nobody was attacking Griffith. Griffith is pretty good, so is Kubrick. They weren't even contemporaries, so why is this a competition? Is it just a way to be pretentious?